Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

December 8th, 2016 6:30 PM
-
9:30 PM

Whether the issue is immigration, Brexit, welfare,
press-regulation, the NHS, or Trump vs. Clinton, concern is being
expressed about the way in which both politicians and the media shape
the political agenda by means of spin, deceit, and, in some cases,
bare-faced lies. To what extent have we lost sight of the truth? How can
we ensure the facts are centre-stage when it comes to policy- and
democratic decision-making? The evening is hosted by CFI's Stephen Law.

Please note that doors open at 18:30 for a 19:00 start. Ticket sales will end at 12:00 on 8 December.

MARTIN ROBBINS: Post-Truth Political Discourse (looking at examples across the political spectrum)

How can we stop our politicians and media lying on matters
of fact/evidence? And why is this not at the top of the political
agenda?

Marcus Chown is formerly a radio astronomer at the
California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Marcus is an
award-winning writer and broadcaster who makes regular appearances on
Channel 4’s Sunday Brunch. Books include What A Wonderful World, Quantum
Theory Cannot Hurt You, We Need to Talk About Kelvin, and Solar System
for iPad.

NATALIE FENTON: Unequal, Undemocratic, Unfair: Media, Power and Politics in the Digital Age

Natalie Fenton is Professor in Media and Communications at
Goldsmiths, University of London. Her most recent books include Digital,
Political, Radical (2016). Natalie is on the Board of Directors of the
campaign group Hacked Off and a founding member of the Media Reform Coalition.

Comments

Big fan of Marcus Chown. He's a regular contributor to New Scientist (to which I subscribe) and I read one of the books you cite: Quantum Mechanics Can't Hurt You.In the Australian Fairfax media (Melbourne AGE) on the weekend, there was a very good article about the 'broken' state of democracy in the US by Paul McGeough, their Washington correspondent. I expect it's available on line.

Popular Posts

Three key points to make when debating the existence of God. 1. Defining God First, in asking: Does God exist? It would be good to get some clarity about which God we are talking about. I
shall assume we are talking about a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and
perfectly good: Prof
William Lane Craig defines God as a 'maximally great being' - which he says requires
that God be morally perfect. Prof
Richard Swinburne similarly characterises God as 'a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good'.

It suffices to establish atheism, then (given these guys' characterisations/definitions of theism), that I show beyond reasonable doubt that there's no being that is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has
had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic
world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the
UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that
there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression,
a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human
concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most
of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact
remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend
to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism,
understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat
vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism
would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Folk who believe in fairies, or miracles, or alien
visitation, are generally fond of an argument called ARGUMENT TO THE BEST
EXPLANATION.
Here's an example of argument to the best explanation (or abduction, as it's sometimes known):
I see shoes poking out from under the curtain and the curtain
twitching slightly above them. I can also hear breathing. I infer there's
someone standing behind the curtain. Why? Because that's the best available
explanation of what I observe. True enough, the twitching might be caused by the breeze from an
open window and the shoes were just coincidentally placed in the same spot. But
I reckon that's a bit less likely than that there's someone standing there (for
what explains the breathing noise?)
Quite what makes an explanation the 'best' is controversial,
but there's some agreement that the simpler and more elegant an explanation,
the better. So, for example, I could explain that twitching curtain by supposing
tha…